OOPS! -- UPDATE: I think I may have found the answer, I'll have to wait until tomorrow afternoon to test it.

I'm trying to print on 11x14 paper with the Canon PRO-100. The print size will be 7.25 x 12, with a .03 black border plus .08 white border. To which I will add two mattes, one .25 in a neutral (-ish) color, the outer matte .15 solid black. This works fine on 11x17 paper w/ 9x15 print size.

But the PRO-100 doesn't have an 11x14 print size available. I thought about using 11x17 and just moving the print, but that's awkward and easy to move image and mattes separately. (It's possible I just need more practice? <g>)

Anyway, is there a simple way to print on 11x14 paper in the PrO-100?

--JustGeorge

p.s.-- I think I'll just buy 11x17 in the future and cut it down for the few images I want to print on 11x14.

Hi George,I think you could select the A3 with the 30 mm margins built in. That gives you 14.1 x 11.4 printable area.Close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades.Even regular A3 size and a rotary trimmer will work.

As long as you don't want borderless, you can just enter a custom size of 11x14: drop down media size and pick "Custom" and enter 11x14 in the boxes and click the check button. If you want borderless, I think the accepted trick is to use 11x17 paper which allows borderless and then just set the placement to IntelliCut so it places all photos at the top/left of the page.

As long as you don't want borderless, you can just enter a custom size of 11x14: drop down media size and pick "Custom" and enter 11x14 in the boxes and click the check button. If you want borderless, I think the accepted trick is to use 11x17 paper which allows borderless and then just set the placement to IntelliCut so it places all photos at the top/left of the page.

Regards,Mike

I think I bought the 11x14 paper because I wanted to force myself to work inside that "frame". I'm in my 11x17 phase at the moment, and that's roughly how I look at images -- usually. 7.25x12 on 11x14 paper anyone? Generally too small for me. But 9x12 or 10x13 for some images works ok.

I don't do borderless, don't imagine I will.

I think this is the answer: I can set one custom paper size in the PRO-100 print properties dialogue, and it seems to remember that last used size. Experimenting, I found that inputting another custom size stickied that new size. Since I don't foresee using any custom size other 11x14, I should be ok.

In order to use the custom media size of 11x14 in QU, I have to save a printer profile for whatever paper(s) I want to use it with. QU will show "Custom" as a Media size, but if Canon doesn't remember that size, QU reverts to something other than 11x14 (haven't tested to see why it chooses what it does). Recalling the custom Printer Setting which I save with 11x14 will use the 11x14 size paper, and it shows in QU's Media Size dialogue.

But QU doesn't carry-over that size to other papers. Just putting 11x14 in the Media size: Custom: dialogue boxes doesn't seem to tell the PRO-100 I want to use 11x14 paper, unless that was the last used custom size and QU wasn't closed in the meantime (I think -- more study in the future required).

It seems as if I have to save a separate Printer Settings for each paper/media combo, I can't just open one saved setting and set the media size to 11x14.

I don't know if this is the best procedure, or if it will help anyone else, but trying to explain it will help me in the future. If, in my dotage, I forget that I don't want to mess with 11x14 paper!

And I'm guessing this might only apply to the Canon PRO-100. (Canon doesn't sell an 11x14 paper, as far as I can see.)

I think this is the answer: I can set one custom paper size in the PRO-100 print properties dialogue, and it seems to remember that last used size. Experimenting, I found that inputting another custom size stickied that new size. Since I don't foresee using any custom size other 11x14, I should be ok.

George,See screen snaps below.All you have to do is set everything the way you want it to be, and then unlock the padlock to be able to reset the default.Then click again, same spot, to open the dialogue box asking if you want to lock in the current (new) settings as default or not.See snap.... click on Current.Now when you open QU it will reset to whatever you have and want to be used.

I have mine set on A3+ Semi gloss with the proper profile and all proper driver settings as if I opened a preset printer setup.All other things are set too like orientation, and your borders and your print size.

Thanks Fred, you taught me about locking/unlocking some time ago. That only works in this case if I want to stay with the 11x14 size, which I don't. However...

What I've done is create a separate profile for a particular media, Red River San Gabriel 2 Baryta, one 11x14 "Custom" and one 11x17. This will tell the printer driver I want an 11x14 media size for that paper. But I can't use 11x14 for any other media unless I go into the printer driver and manually change the custom size to 11x14.

This is not a problem for me. I doubt I'll ever use 11x14 again, just 11x17 and 13x19, occasionally 8.5x11, all native sizes in the PRO-100. I'm guessing other printers have a native 11x14 setting.

Thanks again Fred, but it's too early, still on my first cup of coffee, brain not fully functioning. (That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.)

But I can't use 11x14 for any other media unless I go into the printer driver and manually change the custom size to 11x14.

I'm guessing by that, you are using the Pro-100 XPS driver. That driver is broken in many ways (bugs), one of which is the XPS driver not being able to restore settings for custom sizes. If you use the regular (non-XPS) Pro-100 driver, it will work as you expect.

But I can't use 11x14 for any other media unless I go into the printer driver and manually change the custom size to 11x14.

I'm guessing by that, you are using the Pro-100 XPS driver. That driver is broken in many ways (bugs), one of which is the XPS driver not being able to restore settings for custom sizes. If you use the regular (non-XPS) Pro-100 driver, it will work as you expect.

Mike

Yes, I am. Last September I asked if I should install the XPS driver ( http://ddisoftware.com/tech/qimage-ultimate/xps-driver/ ), Fred said he liked the regular driver and you liked the XPS driver; I didn't install the XPS driver at that time. But later research indicated that the regular driver could result in banding, particularly in skies. Shortly after that (I think), I made a print with sky banding; I installed the XPS driver, re-printed the same image, no banding, so like my Ronco Rotisserie, I set it and forgot it.

So in the meantime, I've been converting all my profiles to the XPS printer, and removed most of the regular profiles (a few papers I haven't used in a while) to reduce clutter. (Don't recall the image I was having problems with.)

The other bug that comes to mind is that the XPS driver sometimes gets the non-printable margins of the paper very wrong. This results in previews showing a full page print as a small print in the upper left corner of a bigger page, with large gray margins on the side and bottom. Yet it still prints OK: with the print filling the page. This mostly happens with larger and/or custom paper sizes.

P.S. I've never seen banding in the regular driver. In fact, when I made custom profiles for the same paper and settings in both the regular and XPS drivers, the profiles were visibly the same which indicates they are both printing the same color. Since both the regular and XPS drivers will only accept 8 bits/channel, in theory, one shouldn't have any more/less banding than the other.

OK, I'll start playing with the standard driver. I can always re-print an image using the XPS driver if I encounter the banding problem again. (I recall it being on a mostly clear blue sky.)

I've been reading thru some online discussions re: the XPS driver, and there doesn't seem to be any consensus one way or the other. A few people seem to prefer it, others don't see any difference, some, like me, didn't see any problems so just left it alone. But those discussions are from 3 to 4 years ago at least, didn't find anything more recent. For whatever tht's worth.